Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific
Reload this Page >

QF Group possible Redundancy Numbers/Packages

Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

QF Group possible Redundancy Numbers/Packages

Old 12th Jul 2020, 01:22
  #681 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: centre of my universe
Posts: 289
Read the Kendal airlines decision. Not a precedent at all
Poto is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2020, 01:46
  #682 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The World
Posts: 1,267
Originally Posted by Poto View Post
Read the Kendal airlines decision. Not a precedent at all
Itís not an exact precedent for this situation (nothing ever is) but it is an example of when the Industrial Relations Commission in 2002 sided with a company over a union over the issue of seniority ďhaving regard to likely additional costs and disruption in the context of presently tenuous airline operationsĒ (those words from the AIRC decision). Just after Ansett collapsed there were then ďtenuousĒ airline operations in Australia, as there are now. It involved a court case over actions outside of strict seniority, and the court did side with the company over the union citing prohibitive costs.

But I donít think this line would be perused in court, I think if it did end up in court itíll come down to what is written in current agreements.

And again, I firmly believe no CR will be required at all. The package is pretty generous enough and I think itíll be oversubscribed.
dr dre is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2020, 01:58
  #683 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 867
And that is the major point out of the Drs example. In the end the court will fall on the side of the greater good. In this case keeping the company (any company) viable, even if that means upsetting a few people. I think most companies will have a relatively easy case to prove what is a more cost effective way to help them survive and thus provide more employment in the longer run and the courts have already shown they will rule that way if it is a grey area.
ozbiggles is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2020, 02:01
  #684 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Living with consequences
Posts: 22
Fuji,
Sorry if I’m being obtuse, but I still don’t get it.

Well the jury is still out on that....
The jury is still out on what?

By definition, Short Haul pilots are those who fly the 737 and Long Haul pilots are everybody else.
So how can 20% of LH pilots be ineligible for VR?
Emmit Stussy is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2020, 02:34
  #685 (permalink)  
Keg

Nunc est bibendum
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 5,422
Ozbiggles, AIPA can easily argue that making a SH F/O redundant (in seniority) won’t have a material impact on the SH business given the business is only flying 20, 30, 40, 50% of it’s normal flying anyway. Even as they ramp back up towards 100% it will simply mean slightly higher divisors for F/Os. I don’t think the ‘business detriment’ is going to be a valid argument by Qantas in that context.

Interestingly I reckon it’d be much cheaper for Qantas to make the bottom 250-300 redundant than offer VR. Any subsequent uptick in flying can be dealt with using heavy crew (2+2 or 1+2+1). At this stage we’d be insane to negotiate/ vote away the accrual of leave at normal rates whilst stood down or on reduced divisors. It’s a small price for Qantas to pay so that they have at it’s disposal a pilot workforce ready to go when things pick up.
Keg is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2020, 02:40
  #686 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: australia
Posts: 48
CR canít create a vacancy otherwise the position was never actually redundant.

This alone means SH is quarantined from a LH surplus.
LTBC is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2020, 02:45
  #687 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 867
Hi Keg, I don’t disagree with you or the logic. I only make the point any argument against ‘company’ logic starts behind the 8 ball. No body had Pandemics in mind when agreements where written and there is ample case law which suggests courts will rule in favour of companies if the company can argue the costs would be ‘unreasonable’ compared to other options, particularly if they can ‘show’ more people will be disadvantaged.

The only sure thing is 2020 might not be the worst year, but it has to be top 5 in that category for aviation.
ozbiggles is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2020, 02:51
  #688 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: centre of my universe
Posts: 289
Originally Posted by LTBC View Post
CR canít create a vacancy otherwise the position was never actually redundant.

This alone means SH is quarantined from a LH surplus.
Unless All of SH is flying above the Divisor trigger for the promulgation of Vacancies then that will make no difference at all. We all know that is some time off.

Poto is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2020, 02:57
  #689 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: centre of my universe
Posts: 289
Originally Posted by dr dre View Post
Itís not an exact precedent for this situation (nothing ever is) but it is an example of when the Industrial Relations Commission in 2002 sided with a company over a union over the issue of seniority ďhaving regard to likely additional costs and disruption in the context of presently tenuous airline operationsĒ (those words from the AIRC decision). Just after Ansett collapsed there were then ďtenuousĒ airline operations in Australia, as there are now. It involved a court case over actions outside of strict seniority, and the court did side with the company over the union citing prohibitive costs.

But I donít think this line would be perused in court, I think if it did end up in court itíll come down to what is written in current agreements.

And again, I firmly believe no CR will be required at all. The package is pretty generous enough and I think itíll be oversubscribed.
The Court Ďsidedí with the Administrator. Not the Company. They were already in administration. The main finding was that the redundancy provisions effectively meant that no pilot could be made redundant ever. Therefore a decision had to be made. It was the poorly written redundancy provisions that brought them undone.
Poto is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2020, 05:30
  #690 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Australia
Posts: 17
Originally Posted by Emmit Stussy View Post
Fuji,
Sorry if Iím being obtuse, but I still donít get it.


The jury is still out on what?

By definition, Short Haul pilots are those who fly the 737 and Long Haul pilots are everybody else.
So how can 20% of LH pilots be ineligible for VR?
The age group that fuji is talking about includes both SH and LH pilots, he isn't saying 20% are ineligible. The assumption is 20% of pilots in that age group are probably SH pilots and are therefore not eligible for VR. 20% is a very reasonable assumption IMO, maybe more.
Give it the herbs is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2020, 05:55
  #691 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Living with consequences
Posts: 22
The age group that fuji is talking about includes both SH and LH pilots, he isn't saying 20% are ineligible. The assumption is 20% of pilots in that age group are probably SH pilots and are therefore not eligible for VR. 20% is a very reasonable assumption IMO, maybe more.
But there aren’t any SH pilots in LH, nil-none-nada

Maybe I’m not explaining this correctly.

If an A380 S/O moves to B737 F/O is that person in now in short haul or still in long haul?
If a B737 Capt moves to B787 Capt is that person still in short haul or are they now in long haul?

Last edited by Emmit Stussy; 12th Jul 2020 at 06:06.
Emmit Stussy is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2020, 06:16
  #692 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 148
Originally Posted by Poto View Post
The Integration Agreement sits above both the LH & SH award. Itís the mechanism that allows crew to move between awards. No one signs a new employment contract when they move between awards because the IA puts you under the same umbrella. The Last on first off redundancy rules come from this agreement.
has the IA been modernised and is it FWC approved? Nope.
cloudsurfng is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2020, 06:20
  #693 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: centre of my universe
Posts: 289
Originally Posted by cloudsurfng View Post
has the IA been modernised and is it FWC approved? Nope.
has a replacement been written or has the IA been cancelled? Nope
Poto is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2020, 06:45
  #694 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: In a house
Posts: 394
Originally Posted by LTBC View Post
CR canít create a vacancy otherwise the position was never actually redundant.

This alone means SH is quarantined from a LH surplus.
^ This is what the company legal advice straight from FW would be.

So yes, Shorthaul will be isolated from a LH surplus.

If thereís a surplus in Shorthaul and it gets to CR the same will apply. A senior FO canít displace a junior pilot from LH.
Blueskymine is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2020, 06:48
  #695 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 148
Originally Posted by Poto View Post
has a replacement been written or has the IA been cancelled? Nope
cool, you stick with yours, Iíll stick with mine, and for the sake of everyone letís hope we never find out who is right.
cloudsurfng is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2020, 06:52
  #696 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 233
Originally Posted by Emmit Stussy View Post
But there arenít any SH pilots in LH, nil-none-nada

Maybe Iím not explaining this correctly.

If an A380 S/O moves to B737 F/O is that person in now in short haul or still in long haul?
If a B737 Capt moves to B787 Capt is that person still in short haul or are they now in long haul?
The only pilots effectively protected and have a right to return to short haul are ďAĒ list pilots. Their jobs in this scenario are protected since short haul flying appears to be viable at the moment. Everyone else is subject to seniority provisions either above or below the Y. If for arguments sake, that Qantas retracted to the point of only being a domestic carrier, then the ďAĒ list pilots would have first claim under the IA then followed by very senior Q pilots then everyone below the Y. There are probably less than 100 ďAĒpilots left however from pre integration of Qantas and Australian Airlines. I may be wrong but regardless of which haul you could still be subject to CR but the company will argue against that hence no VR for short haul. Last on first off is the way it should play out IMO if it comes to that. Hopefully it doesnít. Bring on a vaccine. Living in a NZ OZ bubble is pure folly and will only prolong the economic consequences as reality bites.
Troo believer is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2020, 07:43
  #697 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: centre of my universe
Posts: 289
Not a single SH pilot since the creation of the Integration agreement has signed an employment contract to fly in SH. Itís a secondment under the larger Mainline Umbrella.

That is why QF have the Master seniority list.

As for the vacancy argument, What vacancies would be created in the foreseeable future if a bunch of Junior SH F/Oís were unfortunate enough to be suffer CR? Answer-none. Same as their will be nowhere for a 65yr to Go,
Hence retirement for them.

As for the Costs? The Payout for a Junior SH F/O will be quite a bit less than more Senior LH S/O or F/O (relatively speaking). Retraining costs for a future SH Vacancy? A significant amount of LH crews (S/Oís aside) would need some refamil sims and a week of line sectors to be back in that Seat. Not even the difference between the 2 CR payouts. How much would a Court challenge cost? Quite a bit for both parties.

Whilst Tino might have his thoughts, I wonder if he knows what the IA is? Or even that it Exists?

Does the a pilot Body really want Seniority circumvented?

Tough Days ahead
Poto is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2020, 07:54
  #698 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: australia
Posts: 48
Poto, having no practical vacancies is incidental. From a legal standpoint the SH FO role itself is not redundant.
LTBC is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2020, 07:59
  #699 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: centre of my universe
Posts: 289
Originally Posted by LTBC View Post
Poto, having no practical vacancies is incidental. From a legal standpoint the SH FO role itself is not redundant.
I would wager about 75+% of SH roles are currently redundant.
What Proof have you or QF or any airline that SH will need its entire workforce in the Short, medium or Long term? The Parked 737ís tell a different story right now unfortunately

while Iím at it. The Jumbo is the only role where your logic makes sense. They are gone, not parked
Poto is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2020, 08:03
  #700 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: australia
Posts: 48
Yes, the 747 is the only role that is redundant. The RIN process is what prevents redundancies in category.

If the company wants to make SH pilots redundant due to a SH surplus, it can.
LTBC is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.